RIAZ AHMAD and another vs THE STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Riaz Ahmad and Basharat, who were implicated in F.I.R. No. 155 of 2007 registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictions between the initial F.I.R. and subsequent statements regarding their specific roles. The court held that since the initial F.I.R. attributed only instigation to the petitioners while a later statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 attributed a firearm injury, a prima facie discrepancy arose making the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds, laying down the principle that material contradictions between the F.I.R. and subsequent witness statements regarding the participation of accused persons create a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.
- Does a contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and subsequent witness statements regarding the specific role of an accused make the case one of further inquiry?
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when their actual presence and role at the crime scene remain doubtful?
- What is the legal effect of a material improvement in a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vis-à-vis the initial F.I.R.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Petitioners Riaz Ahmad and Basharat seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,155/2007 dated 3-5-2007 under sections 302, 324, 109, 34 P.P.C. Registered at police station Kameer District Sahiwal.
2. Precisely, the specific role as per F.I.R. Attributed by the complainant is that petitioners along with Sajjad had instigated the principal accused Dawood to kill his father and brother.
3. It is contended that petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year. It is further submitted that petitioners have no reason or object or motive to instigate Dawood co-accused to kill his real father and brother.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that Mst. Shamas Tahira daughter of the deceased and sister of the complainant and Dawood co-accused under section 161, Cr.P.C. Categorically stated that Basharat petitioner caused firearm injury to the deceased. It is further added that complainant has also filed a complaint against the present petitioners in which the petitioners have been summoned.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Complainant has given every detail of the incident in the F.I.R. In which he categorically stated that apart from Dawood no other accused was identifiable. He specifically named the present petitioners that they had advised Dawood co-accused to kill the deceased. Meaning thereby that, prima facie, it appears that statement of Mst. Shamas Tahira was recorded to implicate Basharat petitioner in the actual A occurrence whereas according to the complainant he was not present. In this view of the matter, case of the petitioners requires further inquiry. They are accordingly admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.